The potential argument - while being the only argument that can claim to have some semblance of coherence in relation to putting a value on the zygote - single cell at conception - it is still a road to nowhere as far as I am concerned. Every sperm has the "potential" to create a human - not of its own volition of course but, without the sperm no human is possible. Every time a woman ovulates - this is a potential human. if this potential human is so valuable should we not be trying to ensure that every egg is fertilized .. or at least stored so that the potential to become fertilized is maintained .. Don't want to waste that potential human life you know. You are welcome to try to make some headway with the potential argument. As said previously this is the only coherent path.
Isn't that making a straw man out of the pro life argument? It's not merely just potential, but that is one component of it. When the brain is there and it has potential to work, but isn't working. The question really is what defines existence. Is it the physical substance itself, or how it functions? Are we our actual bodies, or are we rather the physical function of our bodies? It is a bit of a philosophical question. What if 99% of everything needed for consciousness is there in the fetal brain but there just are a few loose connections that haven't been made yet? Does that human substance have inherent worth? If we could build a robot with human-like consciousness, would it cease to have any moral worth once we turned it off? Something else you need to realize about phenomena of consciousness is that it can't be said to exist within any infinitesimal instant in time. Consciousness is a thought process that happens over at least an interval of time. If you had god-like powers and could magically make someone come into existence and then make them disappear, all within a fraction of a second, they wouldn't be conscious (i.e. there'd be no time for consciousness to take place). Therefore, since human worth can't be said to be tied to any static instant in time, it has to be connected to some degree of potentiality. If I could temporarily take away your consciousness, that still wouldn't take away your inherent human worth during that time period. I think if there was a guarantee that you could never be conscious again, it would be safe to regard you as dead. Thus proving an example of potentiality.
A straw man fallacy is when you put words into the other persons mouth -claims that the person did not make - and then attack those claims. First off - I am talking about a zygote - a zygote does not have a brain. The zygote has the potential to create a brain but, this brain does not yet exist. What is the value of something that does not yet exist ? Lets get through the zygote stage first and then we can move on to later stages.
I agree. But there was no picture or mention of a zygote in the OP. Obviously if there's only potentiality, and no scaffold, it does not constitute a human life. The philosophical question is from where (exactly) does human worth derive? We can generally all agree it's from the brain. But once you start talking about a brain that's still in the process of developing, or a brain that's not entirely functional, or even just a brain that's not normal, the philosophical argument starts getting more complicated.
"Life begins in the womb" is a synonym for "life begins at conception". If you agree that a zygote is not a living human we can move on. You should not give up on the potential of the zygote so easily though. What if that zygote was to create the next Einstein ? We might as well talk about something related to the OP rather than the OP itself because the question of the OP is silly. For one ... it should read "Human life begins in the womb" and it should state at what point during the process it life is said to exist. In any case - as per the Metabolic perspective. Life does not begin in the womb. Animate does not come from inanimate. In the human reproductive process - process by which "NEW" life is created- life existing prior to the "NEW" life is a prerequisite.
Not necessarily. Yes, I concede that point. Why don't we fast-forward to when the neural tissue starts forming? When a rudimentary brain has formed.
What ever. Why did you cherry pick my post.. especially given what I said applies to "ALL" life. Here .. I will change it for you as if you were in kindergarten. In any case - as per the Metabolic perspective. Life does not begin in the womb. Animate does not come from inanimate. In the reproductive process of any organism - process by which "NEW" life is created- life existing prior to the "NEW" life is a prerequisite.
But I was not talking about life in general. I was referring to a specific human life. Anyway, if you wanted to talk about life in general, it's a real chicken and the egg problem. What came first? The womb or the human being inside that womb? Would knowing the answer to that question affect your pro-choice stance?
OK ... so you want to make a potential argument on the basis that a brain has formed - but is not yet functional. This is somewhat interesting. The brain of a dead person has also formed - but is no longer functional. On this basis I often argue that the fetus is not yet a human. Your argument is that the dead person's brain does not have the potential to turn on again which of course is true. I would then have to default to - while the brain of the fetus has the potential to turn on (and of course it is also possible that something will happen and that brain will not turn on) it hasn't yet and therefore the fetus does not yet attained the status of human. What then is the value of this brain ? I would have to cede that the entity having this characteristic is more valued than an entity that does not. Does this rise to the level of countering the rights of the woman to autonomy over her own body. I will leave it here for you to respond.
We know the answer to this question. We know that life does not start in the womb. We know for a fact that life has to exist prior to the new life coming into existence. We know that the egg is alive, as is the sperm. We know that without the twinkle in your Fathers eye when he gazed upon your Mother - you would not be here.
I accidentally hit send. The question you are asking is whether God created the first human or evolution. If it is God - then God came first. If it is evolution - there was a long process that takes a while to explain - meaning explain what we know so far. We have figured out that self replicating molecules .. as in RNA - can form in the primordial ooze. We have also figured out how primitive cell walls could have formed around these molecules - selective membranes. Combine these two and you have the basics of life. Mutations over time increase the sophistication and complexity of these molecules - early life. A billion years later and ... you have bacteria. A billion years after that you have more complex life forms. A billion years after than and you have more complex life forms. A billion years after that you have us. Knowing the answer would not affect my position. My position is based on objective logic and reason... tools that God gave me to figure things out.
Well, that's what I'm doing. Combine the existence of a brain with potentiality, as a criteria for life. Basically. I'm willing to admit that a brain that has barely been formed may have much less value than a fully formed brain though. Maybe one could even argue from this perspective that the life of a baby is worth less than a 2-year-old.
If God was the one who gave birth to you, do you feel that would affect your rights or obligations to a developing child inside your womb in any way?
I do not. Especially not if it was the God of Abraham - but that is another story. There is no such thing as a "developing child" in the early stages of pregnancy as a child does not yet exist "IMO". In the latter stages I have moral issues with abortion.
continued - If I could prove to you that you would exist again - would that change your perspective ?
I do not look at it that way. If we want to claim "its a human". We first must define what a human is. Now .. I can do that scientifically = human taxonomy. By that standard no Homo sapiens exists until all the characteristics exist which includes breathing air. or .. I can do it philosophically and use different scientific methods and look at what characteristics (not just taxonomy) that we value in humanity. What is it that we value about life ? A living human under extreme torture can be made to beg for death .. obviously life then has some finite value. There is such a thing as life not worth living such that death would be better. So what do we value about life ? I would say love, companionship, friendship, honor, integrity pleasure, memories, and so on. This is what we value about life/humanity. Now while the brain in question has the potential to experience the above - it does not have any of the above yet. Very hard to quantify a value such that this value can be placed on the scales of justice and realistically expected to outweigh the highly valued rights of the woman to autonomy over her own body.
That seems to involve some potentiality though, since it depends whether there is life waiting at the end of the tunnel or only death. Would you argue inherent human worth derives from memories then? Obviously if I locked you in a room, alone by yourself, or put you in a sensory deprivation tank, there would be no companionship, friendship, honor, integrity pleasure going on, certainly not above the level that a fetus experiences. No love actively going on at that time interval either (unless you consider love from God, but I think that would be counterintuitive to your overall argument here).
It does not depend on whether or not life is waiting at the end. The person under torture does not know what is waiting at the end of the tunnel. He/She only knows that death is better than enduring more torture. The point is that quality of life matters. That the value of life is largely dependent on the quality of life. It does not take much of an imagination to conceive of a situation where it can be concluded that it would be better not to have been born. A life with nothing but pain and suffering - is not much of a life. If I could prove to you (within reason) that existence is eternal - would this change your perspective ?
But you need to draw a distinction between the reality of what that life is worth, and the individual person's assessment of what their life is worth in that moment. For example, if the person's mother is viewing all this through a two-way mirror that is completely sound-proof, and has been informed by the kidnappers that they will release the victim if he doesn't end up first killing himself. Or another example, a cancer patient is suffering in tremendous pain and has been informed by doctors he probably has only a few more weeks to live. But unknown to him, at that exact moment another doctor has just looked at the latest test results and found that the cancer has miraculously disappeared, the patient will very likely make a full recovery!
That is an interesting question. Of course, even if our souls will continue to exist, murder still remains wrong. The reasoning just changes slightly. If the fetus has a soul, it's difficult to make an argument against its rights that isn't also simultaneously an argument against the rights of the mother.
